From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Accountability is a concept in ethics with several meanings. It is often used synonymously with such concepts as answerability, enforcement, responsibility, blameworthiness, liability and other terms associated with the expectation of account-giving. As an aspect of governance, it has been central to discussions related to problems in both the public and private (corporation) worlds.

Accountability is defined as "A is accountable to B when A is obliged to inform B about A’s (past or future) actions and decisions, to justify them, and to suffer punishment in the case of eventual misconduct" ^[1].

In leadership roles, accountability is the acknowledgment and assumption of responsibility for actions, products, decisions, and policies including the administration, governance and implementation within the scope of the role or employment position and encompassing the obligation to report, explain and be answerable for resulting consequences.

In recent years, there has been a growth in the need for transparency with more and more pressure being put on corporations and businesses to be more accountable in their actions to society and the environment. AccountAbility (Institute of Social and Ethical AccountAbility)- an international non-profit membership organisation, was established in 1996 to help promote accountability innovations for sustainable development.

Contents 1 History 2 Types of accountability 2.1 Political Accountability 2.2 Administrative Accountability 2.3 Judicial/legal accountability 2.4 Professional accountability 2.5 Market Accountability 2.6 Constituency Relations 2.7 Public/Private Overlap 3 Social Implications 4 Contemporary Evolution 5 See also 6 References 7 External links

"Accountability" stems from late Latin accomptare (to account), a prefixed form of computare (to calculate), which in turn derived from putare (to reckon).^[2] The word is an extension of the terminology used in the money lending systems that first developed in Ancient Greece and later, Rome.^{[citation needed]} One would borrow money from a money lender, be that a local Temple or Merchant, and would then be held responsible to their account with that party. Responsibility is also a close synonym. Perhaps the first written statement of accountability is in the Code of Hammurabi, Hammurabi describes certain undesirable actions and their consequences. One example:

"If a man uses violence on another man's wife to sleep with her, the man shall be killed, but the wife shall be blameless."

Other early examples can be found in the Bible and the Quaran.

Bruce Stone, O.P. Dwivedi, and Joseph G. Jabbra list 8 types of accountability, namely: moral, administrative, political, managerial, market, legal/judicial, constituency relation, and professional.

The case in which the Congress, or the legislature, holds other civil servant accountable is part of political accountability. Mechanisms of political accountability are vested in constitution, either written or unwritten, or statute and implemented in three dimensions: election, legislature and ministerial.

Election is the most direct way for accountability, and is a way for enforcement. An election gives a chance for the proposed cabinet and proposed legislators to run for campaigns and attend forums so as to explain and inform their purposes and goals if they are elected. On the other hand, it is also a sanction for those who misbehaved or failed to act as a representative for one’s field in the past tenure – by giving the vote to someone else.

Constitution or equivalents also empowers legislature to hold civil servants accountable. Firstly, legislature may invite public servants for inquiry sessions to explain explicitly planning or policies made, or to unfold any misappropriates. Further, legislature can organize an investigation committee for particular issue by inviting outsiders as committees. Abovementioned are mechanisms aiming to compel civil servants in to dialogue and hence, gives answerability. It can introduce motions for impeachment and no-confidence in case for misbehavior or misconduct.

Ministers, as conceived as the top of the hierarchy of the ministry, are supposed to hold accountable for every affairs in the ministry; as all civil servant within are merely cogs and wigs and operate in the light of the ministers’ vision. However, ministerial accountability is vague in parliamentary system. The parliamentary have to constitute the cabinet to executive the government, yet, holding the executives accountable as abovementioned.

Internal rules and norms as well as some independent commission are mechanisms to hold civil servant within the administration of government accountable. Within department or ministry, firstly, behavior is bounded by rules and regulations; secondly, civil servants are subordinates in a hierarchy and accountable to superiors. Nonetheless, there are independent “watchdog” units to scrutinize and hold departments accountable; legitimacy of these commissions is built upon their independence, as it avoids any conflicts of interest. Apart from internal checks, some “watchdog” units accept complaints from citizens, bridging government and society to hold civil servants accountable to citizens, but not merely governmental departments.

Court action and judicial review are two mechanisms by which the public may address violations of law and constitution. Moreover, court actions also fill the gap of accountability between executive and legislature; if the executive fail or reluctant to exercise legitimate decision made by legislature, or vice versa, one can appeal through the court and the tribunal base on constitution or equivalents.

Professional public servants, namely lawyers, doctors, engineers, and accountants, are also bound by professional codes and norms established in the light of public interest ^[3]. Professionals are obliged to join correspondent professional societies and take oaths to be licensed.

Under voices for decentralization and privatization of the government, services provided are nowadays more “customer-driven” and should aim to provide convenience and various choices to citizens; with this perspective, there are comparisons and competition between public and private services and this, ideally, improves quality of service. As mentioned by Bruce Stone, the standard of assessment for accountability is therefore “responsiveness of service providers to a body of ‘sovereign’ customers and produce quality service. Outsourcing service is one means to adopt market accountability. Government can choose among a shortlist of companies for outsourced service; within the contracting period, government can hold the company by rewriting contracts or by choosing another company.

With this perspective, whether a particular agency or the government is being accountable depends on whether voices from agencies, groups or institutions, which is outside the public sector and representing citizens’ interests in a particular constituency or field, are heard. Moreover, the government is obliged to empower members of agencies with political rights to run for elections and be elected; or, appoint them into the public sector as a way to hold the government representative and ensure voices from all constituencies are included in policy-making process.

With the increase over the last several decades in public service provision by private entities, especially in Britain and the United States, some have called for increased political accountability mechanisms to be applied to otherwise non-political entities. Legal scholar Anne Davies, for instance, argues that the line between public institutions and private entities like corporations is becoming blurred in certain areas of public service provision in the United Kingdom and that this can compromise political accountability in those areas. She and others argue that some administrative law reforms are necessary to address this accountability gap. [2]

With respect to the public/private overlap in the United States, public concern over the contracting out of government (including military) services and the resulting accountability gap has been highlighted recently following the shooting incident involving the Blackwater security firm in Iraq. [3]

It has been argued that in Canada the dominant bank industry players, in performing vital economic roles like lending to the government and managing the money and credit supply, are performing public and sometimes political functions without corresponding public and political accountability. [4]

In politics, and particularly in representative democracies, accountability is an important factor in securing legitimacy of public power. Accountability differs from transparency in that it only enables negative feedback after a decision or action, while transparency also enables negative feedback before or during a decision or action. Accountability constrains the extent to which elected representatives and other office-holders can willfully deviate from their theoretical responsibilities, thus reducing corruption. The relationship of the concept of accountability to related concepts like the rule of law or democracy, however, still awaits further elucidation.

In a BBC documentary, the Misrepresentation of the People Act was proposed to make members of parliament in the UK more accountable.

Accountability involves either the expectation or assumption of account-giving behavior. The study of account giving as a sociological act was recently articulated in a 1968 article on "Accounts" by Marvin Scott and Stanford Lyman and Stephen Soroka ^[4], although it can be traced as well to J.L. Austin's 1956 essay "A Plea for Excuses," ^[5] in which he used excuse-making as an example of speech acts.

Communications scholars have extended this work through the examination of strategic uses of excuses, justifications, rationalizations, apologies and other forms of account giving behavior by individuals and corporations, and Philip Tetlock and his colleagues have applied experimental design techniques to explore how individuals behave under various scenarios and situations that demand accountability.

In Britain, accountability has been formally identified by Government since 1995 as one of the Seven Principles of Public Life^[6]: "Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office." The goal of accountability is at times in tension with the goal of leadership. A constituency may have short-term desires which are at odds with long-term interests. It has also been argued that accountability provides in certain situations an escape route for ministers to avoid the consequences of ministerial responsibility, which would require resignation.^[7]

Recently, accountability has become an important topos in the discussion about the legitimacy of international institutions. ^[8] Because there is no global democracy to which organizations must account, global administrative bodies are often criticized as having large accountability gaps. One paradigmatic problem arising in the global context is that of institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF who are founded and supported by wealthy nations and provide aid, in the form of grants and loans, to developing nations. Should those institutions be accountable to their founders and investors or to the persons and nations they help? In the debate over global justice and its distributional consequences, Cosmopolitans tend to advocate greater accountability to the disregarded interests of traditionally marginalized populations and developing nations. On the other hand, those in the Nationalism and Society of States traditions deny the tenets of moral universalism and argue that beneficiaries of global development initiatives have no substantive entitlement to call international institutions to account.

Accountability is becoming an increasingly important issue for the non-profit world. Several NGOs signed the "accountability charter" in 2005. In the Humanitarian field, initiatives such as the HAPI (Humanitarian Accountability Partnership International) appeared. Individual NGOs have set their own accountability systems (for example, the ALPS, Accountability, Learning and Planning System of ActionAid)

• Campaign finance reform
• Committee on Standards in Public Life
• Freedom of information legislation
• Government Accountability Office
• Transparency International
• Worldwide Governance Indicators
• Sterling Harwood, "Accountability," in John K. Roth, ed., Ethics: Ready Reference (Salem Press, 1994), reprinted in Sterling Harwood, ed., Business as Ethical and Business as Usual (Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1996).

1. ^ Schedler, Andreas (1999). "Conceptualizing Accountability", in Andreas Schedler, Larry Diamond, Marc F. Plattner: The Self-Restraining State: Power and Accountability in New Democracies. London: Lynne Rienner Publishers, pp. 13-28. ISBN 1-55587-773-7. 
2. ^ Oxford English Dictionary 2nd Ed.
3. ^ Dwivedi, O. P. (1989). in Joseph G. Jabbra: Public Service Accountability: A Comparative Perspective. West Hartford, Conn.: Kumarian Press, pp. 1-10. ISBN 0783775814. 
4. ^ Scott, Marvin B.; Lyman, Stanford M. (Feb. 1968). "Accounts". American Sociological Review 33 (1): 46-62. ISSN 0003-1224. 
5. ^ Austin, J.L. 1956-7. A plea for excuses. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. Reprinted in J.O. Urmson & G.J. Warnock, eds., 1979, J.L. Austin: Philosophical Papers, 3rd edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 175-204.
6. ^ Standards in Public Life: First Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life (1995) Cm2850 page 14 text accessed at [1] June 12, 2006
7. ^ Public service Committee, Second report, Ministerial Accountability and Responsibility, Session 1995-6, HC 313.
8. ^ Grant, Ruth W.; Keohane, Robert O. (2005). "Accountability and Abuses of Power in World Politics". American Political Science Review 99 (1): 29-43. doi:10.1017/S0003055405051476. ISSN 0003-0554. 

AccountAbility